Download Further and Farther

1
KU Leuven
Faculty of Arts
Blijde Inkomststraat 21, box 3301
3000 Leuven, Belgium
Further and Farther: Competition or Functional Differentiation?
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Advanced Studies in Linguistics
By ASHRAF KHAMIS
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hendrik De Smet
Academic year: 2013–14
11,279 words
Leuven, 13 August 2014
2
ABSTRACT
In this thesis, we examine the kind of relationship that holds between further and
farther by means of a comparative corpus analysis covering the period from 1570
to 1920. From a diachronic standpoint, both forms have shown more functional
overlap than differentiation, their current division of labor having only gained
prominence since the 18th century. Taking into account their syntactic and
semantic properties, this study explores how further and farther could have
developed their present-day differentiation in the course of their history. Our aim
is not only to account for the preference of one form over the other in different
syntactic environments, but also to draw attention to their underlying semantics.
Arguing against the long-held prescriptive claims suggesting a distinction
between the two forms based on a figurative-physical contrast, we instead
acknowledge the important role that frequency plays in form choice.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 4
1.1 Further and farther in reference grammars................................................... 4
1.2 Various uses of further: Evidence for differentiation?.................................. 5
1.3 Further and farther: Historical functional overlap ....................................... 7
1.4 Research motivation and objectives ............................................................ 10
2 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 12
2.1 Data extraction and sorting ......................................................................... 12
2.2 Data noise .................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Coding scheme ............................................................................................ 14
2.3.1 Syntactic scope ..................................................................................... 15
2.3.2 Semantic interpretation ......................................................................... 18
3 CORPUS RESULTS.......................................................................................... 23
3.1 Frequency analysis ...................................................................................... 23
3.2 Syntactic analysis ........................................................................................ 24
3.3 Semantic analysis ........................................................................................ 33
4 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 43
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 46
4
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Further and farther in reference grammars
A division of labor between further and farther with regard to their present-day
usage has been long maintained in the prescriptive tradition. Going as far back as
the 19th century, Cobbett (1883 [1818]: 49) implies that further is more flexible
in that it is not only the comparative degree of far but also serves an additive
function in the discourse, while farther is used exclusively to express distance.
Along similar lines, Garner (2003: 340) maintains that both comparative forms
have undergone differentiation, with further “[i]n the best usage” now referring to
figurative distance and farther to physical distance. Garner (2003: 340) concedes,
however, that this distinction is not always observed in practice, as reflected in his
explanatory notes in (1)–(2) below.
(1) After popping in to say hello to Sue’s dad, we walked further [read
farther] up Main Street to the Maritime Museum. (Garner 2003: 340)
(2) But the employees at One Marine Midland Center take the spirit of giving
a step farther [read further]. (Garner 2003: 340)
On the other hand, Fowler (2009 [1926]: 171) points out from a more
descriptive perspective that this kind of differentiation is far from established in
Present-Day English, with language users essentially opting for further for all
purposes and for farther where physical distance is concerned. Similarly, Quirk et
al. (1985: 458–9) argue against a clear-cut distinction between further and farther
on the basis of whether they express abstract or physical relations. Instead, Quirk
et al. (1985: 459) posit that further and by extension furthest denote both relation
types as indicated in (3)–(4) below. In contrast, farther is mostly restricted to
expressions of physical distance. Additionally, Quirk et al. (1985: 459) suggest
that the fact that furthest is favored over farthest in (4) with reference to a
5
physical relation is largely motivated by commonality considerations (i.e. by
furthest typically being the more frequent form in that particular context).
(3) Nothing could be further from the truth. [expressing an abstract relation]
(Quirk et al. 1985: 459)
(4) My house is furthest from the station. [expressing physical distance]
(Quirk et al. 1985: 459)
On a separate note, Quirk et al. (1985: 523) also seem to hint at the potential
interchangeability of both adjectival and adverbial further and farther in their
capacity as ‘space adjuncts’ in (5)–(6) below.
(5) They are further/farther ahead/downstream than we are. [adjectival space
adjuncts] (Quirk et al. 1985: 523)
(6) He went further/farther up the mountain/through the wood than I did.
[adverbial space adjuncts] (Quirk et al. 1985: 523)
1.2 Various uses of further: Evidence for differentiation?
From the above accounts, it is reasonable to assume that some sort of functional
division of labor between further and farther is at work in Present-Day English.
This is most pronounced in three additional uses that seem to be exclusively
associated with further in the literature. First, Quirk et al. (1985: 459) maintain
that the most common use of further is not as the comparative form of far but in
the sense of ‘more’, ‘additional’, or ‘later’ as demonstrated in (7)–(9) below. A
similar position is echoed in Downing & Locke (2006: 485) where the three
aforementioned senses are supplemented with that of ‘other’.
(7) Any further questions? [‘more/additional/other’] (Quirk et al. 1985: 459)
(8) That’s a further reason for deciding now. [‘additional/other’] (Quirk et al.
1985: 459)
6
(9) The school will be closed until further notice. [‘later’] (Quirk et al. 1985:
459)
Additionally, Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 353, 556) state that further in the
context of the NP serves as a ‘quantifying attributive’ that can modify plural
heads (e.g. questions as in (7)), count singulars (e.g. reason as in (8)), and noncount singulars (e.g. notice as in (9)).
Leech & Svartvik (2003: 208), on the other hand, see prenominal further
as a postdeterminer that serves a deictic function by relating additional referential
information. In this sense, further belongs to a class of so-called ‘general ordinals’
(with next, last, other, etc.), which may precede or follow ordinal numbers (e.g. a
further three questions, three further questions) (Leech & Svartvik 2003: 209).
Similarly, on the basis of a synchronic corpus study, Breban & Davidse (2003)
conclude that further is an adjective of comparison that introduces new instances
of a known type with its postdeterminer use (see also Breban 2010: Chapter 3 for
a summary of the study’s main findings). In view of this, further in the context of
the NP has a textual rather than descriptive or propositional meaning, with its
postdeterminer status in Present-Day English being the result of subjectification
(Breban 2010: Chapter 4).
Second, using the Longman Spoken and Written English (LSWE) corpus,
Biber et al. (1999: 133) point out the use of further as a ‘linking adverbial’ (also
‘connective adjunct’ in Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 778) as illustrated in (10)–
(11) below.
(10) Further, these atoms interact with each other and with their environment
in unknown ways. [linking adverbial use] (Biber et al. 1999: 133)
(11) Mr. Justice Hirst said that the criteria in determining whether an overseas
company had established a place of business in Great Britain were
summarised in Palmer’s Company Law, 24th edn (1987) page 1658.
7
Further, a visible sign or physical indication was not essential. [linking
adverbial use] (Biber et al. 1999: 876)
Linking adverbials serve the purpose of connecting two clauses by adding to the
preceding unit of discourse (Biber et al. 1999: 875). Additionally, they are noted
for being flexible (e.g. occurring clause-initially, pre-verbally, and post-verbally)
and sometimes for being prosodically and orthographically separated from the rest
of the clause (Biber et al. 1999: 876). For this reason, Huddleston & Pullum
(2002: 777) classify linking further as a member of the larger category ‘pure
connectives’ along with moreover, besides, and also.
Third and finally, Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 582) touch upon the minor
use of adverbial further as a degree marker (much like intensifiers really, utterly,
and actually) that can split infinitival to from its bare verb (e.g. to further delay
the meeting).
1.3 Further and farther: Historical functional overlap
It is easy to assume with the different meanings that further has come to acquire
due to subjectification that the functional differentiation between the two forms
has always been in place. However, a survey of the Oxford English Dictionary
(OED) reveals otherwise. First, with regard to their present-day usage, the OED
largely concurs with the division of labor detailed earlier, yet acknowledges the
fuzziness of the distinction:
In standard English the form farther is usually preferred where the word is
intended to be the comparative of far, while further is used where the
notion of far is altogether absent; there is a large intermediate class of
instances in which the choice between the two forms is arbitrary.
8
Summarizing the OED’s etymological account, Fowler (2009 [1926]: 171) notes
that farther is essentially a respelling of further, one which is more assimilated to
the base far and substitutes for the now-obsolete regular comparative farrer.
Second, in their various meaning clusters, further and farther have diachronically
shown complete functional overlap from as early as the 14th century, with their
separate OED entries conflated below for illustration. As adjectives, further and
farther share the following senses:
(a) Obsolete: ‘prior, former; front’
(12) Gif ane horse slayes ane man passand before him, with his forther
feete. [‘front’ (1609, OED s.v. further adj.)]
(13) Of the two ferther maners Panecius dyd declare in thre bookes.
[‘prior/former’ (1534, OED s.v. farther adv. & adj.)]
(b) ‘More extended, going beyond what already exists or has been dealt with;
additional, more’
(14) Without any further delay, the King sent them away. [‘more
extended/additional/more’ (1582, OED s.v. further adj.)]
(15) There is one farther Objection made by those who have answered
this Book. [‘additional/more’ (1710, OED s.v. farther adv. & adj.)]
(c) ‘More distant, remoter’
(16) They would . . . goe foorth into a further countrey. [expressing
physical distance (1611, OED s.v. further adj.)]
(17) To hinder them from a farther prospect. [expressing figurative
distance (1651, OED s.v. farther adv. & adj.)]
Perhaps most revealing above is the use of adjectival farther as a
postdeterminer in the context of the NP in (15) and as a space adjunct with
reference to figurative distance in (17), two senses long held to be exclusively
associated with further in Present-Day English. Note also that this kind of
9
functional overlap between further and farther is not only restricted to their
adjectival use; the same is also attested for their adverbial function, as
demonstrated in their combined senses below:
(d) ‘More forward; to or at a more advanced point of progress’
(18) Hither to shalt thou come, but no further. [spatial construal (1535,
OED s.v. further adv.)]
(19) Some Creatures cast their Eggs as Chance directs them, and think of
them no farther. [temporal construal (1711, OED s.v. farther adj. &
adv.)]
(e) ‘To a greater extent; more’
(20) Men who pretend to believe no further than they can see. [degree
modifier (1734, OED s.v. further adv.)]
(21) Sit downe For thou must now know farther. [degree modifier (1616,
OED s.v. farther adj. & adv.)]
(f) ‘In addition, besides, moreover’
(22) And, further, God is the only end that can . . . satisfy the soul with
bliss. [linking adverbial (1875, OED s.v. further adv.)]
(23) Nay farther, the common Motive of foreign Adventures was taken
away. [linking adverbial (1719, OED s.v. farther adj. & adv.)]
(g) ‘To or at a greater distance’
(24) Island disjoyned no further than a ship in one day may saile unto.
[space adjunct (1630, OED s.v. further adv.)]
(25) He would catch Her beauty farther than the falcon spies. [space
adjunct (1820, OED s.v. farther adj. & adv.)]
As can be seen above, farther had all the meanings that further continues to have
today. Indeed, the latest OED examples show that adverbial farther can be used in
a temporal (non-spatial) sense in (19), as a degree modifier in (21), or as a linking
10
adverbial in (23). Curiously, all the above meanings of further and farther – with
the exception of (a) – remain in use. In practice, however, some sort of functional
differentiation between the two forms seems to operate in Present-Day English. In
this study, we aim to examine how this differentiation could have come about in
terms of actual language usage (keeping in mind the OED evidence detailed
above).
1.4 Research motivation and objectives
The current inquiry into further and farther is inspired by the fact that the two
forms have received very little attention in the literature. Aside from the usage
notes discussed earlier, the different senses of further and farther have not been
systematically investigated. In this thesis, we will confront the few usage claims
in reference grammars and the OED (which are based on a rather limited set of
observations) with comprehensive corpus data. Moving away from the largely
synchronic point of view that has dominated much of the literature, we will
approach the present topic by means of a diachronic corpus analysis of the two
forms from Early to Late Modern English. With this study rooted in the usagebased theory of language change (see e.g. Langacker 1987, 1991; Croft 2000;
Tomasello 1998, 2002; Bybee 2010), our aim is twofold. First, against the
backdrop of existing literature, we will test for a possible competition or a
division of labor between further and farther in the corpus data from 1570 to
1920. Second, we will account for the functional differentiation between the two
forms that appears to be at work in Present-Day English. More specifically, the
thesis concerns itself with three main lines of research inquiry, which can be
summed up as follows:
•
How are further and farther charted in the corpus data in terms of
frequency, and how did their distribution evolve from 1570 to 1920?
11
•
What kind of relationship exists between further and farther in the light of
diachronic corpus evidence? What possible pathways have led to the
present-day functional differentiation between the two forms?
•
How can the syntactic and semantic development of further and farther be
accounted for, and how does it inform their diachronic relationship?
To address the above questions, the remainder of the thesis is organized as
follows. Section 2 describes the extraction and sorting of data and the coding
scheme used for corpus analysis. Section 3 includes a detailed quantitative and
qualitative analysis of the data and an overview of corpus results. Finally, Section
4 closes with a summary of key findings and conclusions and suggestions for
further research.
12
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Data extraction and sorting
This comparative study of further and farther is based on two part-of-speech
(POS) tagged corpora covering the period from 1473 to 1920. For the purposes of
this analysis, we have chosen to focus on the diachronic competition between the
two forms from 1570 to 1920, a period characterized by both data richness and a
marked frequency variation in the corpora. First, for the data between 1570 and
1700, we have accessed the Early English Books Online (EEBO) corpus. Divided
by decade, EEBO contains c. 525 million words from more than 125,000 titles.
Second, for the data between 1710 and 1920, we have used the Corpus of
Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0 (CLMET3.0), which encompasses c. 34
million words of running text by native British authors covering the period from
1710 to 1920. Comprising a wide range of public-domain texts compiled from a
number of online archiving projects, CLMET3.0 is further divided into three 70year sub-periods: 1710–1780, 1780–1850, and 1850–1920 (see De Smet 2005 for
more information on the corpus architecture). Both EEBO and CLMET3.0 are
tailored for diachronic studies of the English language, particularly the
investigation of the different mechanisms of syntactic and semantic change.
Taking into account variant spellings in EEBO, we have retrieved all
occurrences of the word forms further and farther and their variations using the
regular expressions \bf(u|o|v)r(th|d|h)er\b (further, furder, furher, forther, forder,
forher, fvrther, fvrder, fvrher) and \bfar(th|h|d)er\b (farther, farher, farder)
respectively in which all forms appear separated before and after by a word
boundary. Paralleling the structure of CLMET3.0 to allow for cross-period
comparison, we have combined the 13 decades in EEBO into one 70-year and one
60-year periods (note that there is no data available in either corpus for the decade
1700–1710). On the other hand, due to orthography standardization, the simple
13
regular expressions \bfurther\b and \bfarther\b for further and farther respectively
in CLMET3.0 have proved to be sufficient. A full breakdown of generated query
hits and selected data points across newly formed and existing periods in both
corpora is given in Table 1 below.
Period
Further
Farther
Total
Selected
Total
Selected
query hits
instances
query hits
instances
1570–1640
44,452
200
9,224
200
1640–1700
80,235
200
29,226
200
1710–1780
1,407
200
1,468
200
1780–1850
1,949
200
770
200
1850–1920
2,882
200
533
200
Total
1,000
1,000
Table 1
Total query hits and selected observations of further and farther
across five periods in EEBO and CLMET3.0
To ensure representativeness across corpus data spanning four and a half
centuries, we have randomized all extracted observations (per 10 years in EEBO
before merging the decades into two periods as previously noted and per 70 years
in CLMET3.0) and then selected 200 instances to analyze for every period listed
above for a total of 1,000 data points each for further and farther. Moreover, we
have normalized all absolute frequencies per one million words to reflect both
(sub-)corpus size and the total number of hits in each period. For this, we have
calculated the normalized frequencies for every decade in EEBO and then taken
their average over seven and six decades for the periods 1570–1640 and 1640–
1700 respectively. The frequency normalization for CLMET3.0, on the other
hand, has been carried out using its existing 70-year division.
2.2 Data noise
While the vast majority of all observations have been found relevant for the
present study, the corpus data has still required some manual sorting to eliminate
14
both irrelevant instances and any potential printing errors. In view of this, we
have considered the types of forms indicated below as data noise and
consequently excluded them from the analysis:
•
The verbal use of further and farther in the sense of ‘advance’, ‘promote’,
or ‘forward’ as in (26)–(27) respectively:
(26) [H]e would have no selfish interest to further: . . . [verbal further (1838,
CLMET3.0)]
(27) [T]he Keeper, . . . Studied Night and Day how to farther it and bring it to
Perfection. [verbal farther (1700, EEBO)]
•
Instances of further and farther followed by more in which they form twoword sequences operating in lieu of furthermore and the now-obsolete
farthermore as in (28)–(29) respectively:
(28) Peter also erred: he further more also erred in manners . . . [further as
part of a two-word sequence (1670, EEBO)]
(29) [T]hey must not be too much vvorne out, . . . Farther more they must be
even and smoothe, . . . [farther as part of a two-word sequence (1598,
EEBO)]
•
Instances of farther where it appears to be a printing error (a misspelling
of father) as in (30a, b):
(30) (a) “Holy farther,” said Hippolita, “it is your office to be no respecter of
persons: . . . [farther as a printing error (1764, CLMET3.0)]
(b) How then can any one dare to say that such a man as my farther is a
work of the devil? [farther as a printing error (1884, CLMET3.0)]
2.3 Coding scheme
For the purposes of the present study, we have analyzed all selected observations
of further and farther in the corpora on the basis of two parameters: syntactic
15
scope and semantic interpretation. On the syntactic level, attention has been paid
to the items that further and farther modify in the corpus data. Additionally, the
semantic nuances of the two forms have been teased out to identify the possible
readings they allow in different contexts. The syntactic and semantic labels that
we have assigned to the data will be clearly defined in the next subsections.
2.3.1 Syntactic scope
This parameter aims to investigate whether the uses of further and farther have
developed along similar lines from Early to Late Modern English and the different
syntactic environments with which the two forms have become more or less
associated during the time. Accordingly, the parameter takes as its values the
syntactic categories over which both adjectival and adverbial further and farther
appear to have scope in the corpus data. These comprise regular nouns (in a
premodifying (31a, b) or postmodifying (32a, b) capacity) or nominal gerunds
serving as NPs (attested only with further) (33), adjectives (34a, b), verbs (35a,
b), adverbs (36a, b), and PPs (37a, b).
(31) (a) [B]ut yet for some other further approbation (as I thinke) the thing is
not hetherto sent from thence, . . . [noun premodifier (1581, EEBO)]
(b) [A]nd did, as it were, assure himself that he had some farther meaning
in this, . . . [noun premodifier (1773, CLMET3.0)]
(32) (a) [T]he Scripture notes three things further concerning Angells, worth
obseruing: . . . [noun postmodifier (1618, EEBO)]
(b) I have nothing farther to add upon him, . . . [noun postmodifier (1768,
CLMET3.0)]
(33) Colin saw that he regarded her refusal, . . . as a further clenching of the
reply to his addresses. [nominal gerund modifier (1865, CLMET3.0)]
16
(34) (a) It is further observable, that he calleth them my little children, . . .
[adjective modifier (1656, EEBO)]
(b) I do not think my self any farther concern’d for the Success of what I
have Written, than as it is agreeable to Truth. [adjective modifier (1710,
CLMET3.0)]
(35) (a) The Siege of Paris showed the utility of free balloons, and occasions
arise when their use might be still further extended. [verb modifier (1902,
CLMET3.0)]
(b) But for the present, with this invisible tenet of the Visible Church, wee
will trouble our selves no farther. [verb modifier (1638, EEBO)]
(36) (a) [T]he Limes, Cypresses, and Plane-trees reach the 79th degree of
latitude, and the Pines and Poplars must have ranged even further north
than this. [adverb modifier (1877, CLMET3.0)]
(b) To spreade and sowe farther abrode. [adverb modifier (1578, EEBO)]
(37) (a) [F]or if you put further to seaward, then the streames run too stiffe
towards the straight, . . . [PP modifier (1598, EEBO)]
(b) I crept farther into the Wood to rest my Limbs, but my Thoughts kept
me waking all Night. [PP modifier (1720, CLMET3.0)]
In the light of the above examples, four important observations need to be
made. First, the previous fine-grained distinction between noun premodifiers and
postmodifiers as well as between nouns and their gerundive counterparts will be
collapsed in the discussion of corpus results (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 below).
Second, in the sequence [further/farther + adverb/PP] illustrated in (36)–(37)
above, it is not always clear whether further/farther is the head of the sequence
with the adverb/PP functioning as a postmodifier, or the adverb/PP is the head of
a sequence modified by further/farther. We have opted for the latter interpretation
since the former implies that the whole sequence is dependent on the preceding
17
verb, thereby vastly augmenting the class of verb modifiers (at the expense of
those of adverb and PP modifiers) in the reported results. Third, both the
ambiguity of the head-dependent status of the sequence [further/farther +
preposition] and the nonomissibility of further/farther in that context suggest that
such constructions as further on and farther up in (38a, b) below may be adverbs
in their own right. Fourth, the two forms have been coded as having zero scope in
the corpus data when they occur predicatively (39a, b), clause-initially as linking
adverbials (40a, b) (Biber et al. 1999: 133), or as one part of comparativecorrelative (the . . . the . . .) constructions (41a, b) (see e.g. Culicover &
Jackendoff 1999; Cappelle 2011).
(38) (a) So, further on, he says, “masculine nose,” – maschio naso.
[ambiguous head-dependent status (1846, CLMET3.0)]
(b) [T]he feare of which had caused some alreadie to passe by this Towne
to Gudda, the Port of Mecca, one hundred and fifty leagues farther vp, . .
. [ambiguous head-dependent status (1625, EEBO)]
(39) (a) I believe he had never been further than the billiard-saloon looking
for them. [predicative use (1874, CLMET3.0)]
(b) [T]hey convey it and carry it up into some higher room that is farther
from the Earth, and neerer to Heaven, . . . [predicative use (1639, EEBO)]
(40) (a) And further her Maiesties pleasure is, that all matters, . . . [linking
adverbial use (1570, EEBO)]
(b) And farther, in the same Speech, I’ve heard that guilty Creatures at a
Play, Have, . . . Been so struck to the Soul, . . . [linking adverbial use
(1731, CLMET3.0)]
(41) (a) Frankly, had I been the King, the further they had gone the better
should I have been pleased. [comparative correlative (1894, CLMET3.0)]
18
(b) Now those who with such egernesse do follow wrong paths, the
farther they go on, the more they go astray. [comparative correlative
(1600, EEBO)]
2.3.2 Semantic interpretation
The goal of this parameter is to explore the kind of relationship between further
and farther, its diachronic evolution from Early to Late Modern English, and the
rate at which the different senses of the two forms have emerged (or disappeared)
and strengthened (or weakened) based on corpus evidence. Semantically, we have
coded further and farther for all the possible readings they take depending on the
types of categories they modify in the corpus data. As demonstrated below, these
meanings naturally cross-cut the syntactic distinctions outlined in the previous
section.
Further and farther may exhibit an ‘additive’ sense along the lines of
additional or more, also, and besides when they occur as noun modifiers (42a, b),
verb modifiers (43a, b), and linking adverbials (44a, b) respectively (Quirk et al.
1985: 459; Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 777–8). Moreover, they can be used in a
‘continuative’ sense to imply a sort of temporal contour with situations that allow
a ‘durative’ interpretation at the VP level (see e.g. Vendler 1967; Depraetere &
Langford 2012: 139–43). This ‘continuative’ reading is most notably associated
not only with verbs (45a, b) but also with deverbal nouns (46a, b) in the corpus
data. A combination of the ‘additive’ and ‘continuative’ senses above – in which
both readings are felicitous in the given context – is also attested with the verbmodifying uses of further and farther (47a, b).
(42) (a) [T]he Prince had his Sheeld and Launce ready, . . . wherefore without
any further answer, he sharply charged them, . . . [noun modifier with an
‘additive’ sense (1618, EEBO)]
19
(b) Ivanhoe distinguished himself in the service of Richard, and was
graced with farther marks of the royal favour. [noun modifier with an
‘additive’ sense (1819, CLMET3.0)]
(43) (a) Human actions are not only agreeable or disagreeable, beautiful or
deformed, . . . but are further distinguished in our feeling, . . . [verb
modifier with an ‘additive’ sense (1751, CLMET3.0)]
(b) I haue noted him in such places as I thought conuenient, and would
haue farther augmented him but that I thought it not good to be to curious
in an other mans woork. [verb modifier with an ‘additive’ sense (1577,
EEBO)]
(44) (a) They also be great sléepers, and sléeping often: yet eating little, . . .
Further, such be white of skinne, with some rednesse mixed: . . . [linking
adverbial with an ‘additive’ sense (1571, EEBO)]
(b) But I gave him for answer, that I would treat no where but on board
my own ship; and farther, that it was now too late, . . . [linking adverbial
with an ‘additive’ sense (1773, CLMET3.0)]
(45) (a) I would hear him no further; but withdrew in a confusion too visible,
. . . [verb modifier with a ‘continuative’ sense (1748, CLMET3.0)]
(b) Whereof after Atlas had vnderstandinge, he desisted from farther
attemptinge the conqueste of Constantinople, . . . [verb modifier with a
‘continuative’ sense (1571, EEBO)]
(46) (a) Rawlins kept the kniues in his sleeue all night, . . . but the next day
when he perceiued the coast cleare, and that there was no cause of further
feare, he somewhat comforted himselfe, . . . [deverbal-noun modifier with
a ‘continuative’ sense (1622, EEBO)]
(b) [M]y respectful esteem for a gentleman whose farther acquaintance I
should look upon as a peculiar obligation. [deverbal-noun modifier with a
‘continuative’ sense (1731, CLMET3.0)]
20
(47) (a) [T]o remind me of what I have gone through, and how great God’s
goodness has been to me (which, I hope, will further strengthen my good
resolutions, . . . [verb modifier with possible ‘additive’ and ‘continuative’
senses (1740, CLMET3.0)]
(b) And now, having explained the substance of the Doctrine . . . I farther
clear what belongs to this Subject, in the Solution of several Queries about
the Soul . . . [verb modifier with possible ‘additive’ and ‘continuative’
senses (1685, EEBO)]
Besides the senses outlined above, we have identified a ‘space adjunct’
reading with the noun-modifying (postdeterminer) (48a, b) and verb-modifying
(49a, b) uses of further and farther in the corpus data (Quirk et al. 1985: 523).
Additionally, we have distinguished between three ‘space adjunct’ senses based
on the types of distance they denote: physical distance (48a, b), figurative distance
at the VP level (49a, b), and figurative distance at the word level (50a, b). The
figurative distance at the VP level involves the metaphorical spatial construal of
further and farther with ‘movement’ and ‘displacement’ verbs, which express the
manner of motion (e.g. run, walk, jump, fly) and the path of motion (e.g. come, go,
enter, exit) respectively (see Talmy 1985, 2000: 213–88; Berthele 2004 for the
detailed motion verb classification). On the other hand, the figurative distance at
the word level relates to the metaphorical space adjunct use of further and farther
with all non-motion verbs. To put it differently, in the former figurative sense, it
is the whole VP in which the two forms are embedded that is metaphorical,
whereas in the latter further and farther are metaphorical in their own right.
(48) (a) Marcus Varro, in the further Province of Spain, . . . did oftentimes
give out very friendly speeches of Casar: . . . [noun-modifying ‘space
adjunct’ expressing physical distance (1655, EEBO)]
21
(b) The farther extremity of the room was concealed by a curtain, . . .
[noun-modifying ‘space adjunct’ expressing physical distance (1834,
CLMET3.0)]
(49) (a) But oh! my sweet creature, carry your thoughts a little further. [verbmodifying ‘space adjunct’ expressing figurative distance at the VP level
(1751, CLMET3.0)]
(b) For Faith being a Doctrine of piety as well as truth, . . . if not, it ended
in personall impiety and went no farther. [verb-modifying ‘space adjunct’
expressing figurative distance at the VP level (1648, EEBO)]
(50) (a) That no man should let what is unjustifiable or dangerous appear
under his hand, . . . nor pry any further into secrecy, . . . [‘space adjunct’
expressing figurative distance at the word level (1670, EEBO)]
(b) [B]ut William, who looked farther into the consequences of this affair
than either his wife or his aunt, believed it necessary . . . [‘space adjunct’
expressing figurative distance at the word level (1761, CLMET3.0)]
As is the case with the ‘additive’ and ‘continuative’ sense combination
noted above, the ‘space adjunct’ reading can simultaneously admit ‘continuative’
(51a, b) and ‘additive’ (52a, b) interpretations with the verb-modifying and nounpostmodifying uses respectively. The final semantic label that we have applied to
further and farther is that of ‘scalar’, a rarely attested sense typically associated
with the classes of zero-scope and adjective modifiers (53a, b) in the corpus data.
In this regard, ‘scalar’ further and farther function as ‘boosters’ along the lines of
the adverbial intensifiers far and more (Quirk et al. 1985: 590–1).
(51) (a) I explained to her that we must walk a little further to get to a cabstand, . . . [verb modifier with possible ‘space adjunct’ and ‘continuative’
senses (1860, CLMET3.0)]
22
(b) [N]ot being able to advance any farther, they were constrained to
retire for the first time. [verb modifier with possible ‘space adjunct’ and
‘continuative’ senses (1684, EEBO)]
(52) (a) [F]rom whence the coast reacheth Southwest: not ful seauen miles
further, there runneth into the sea a riuer called Pizagua, . . . [noun
postmodifier with possible ‘space adjunct’ and ‘additive’ senses (1598,
EEBO)]
(b) Look at the bitch at the other end of the field, backing him like a
statue, while the old dog still creeps on. Not a step farther will he move: .
. . [noun postmodifier with possible ‘space adjunct’ and ‘additive’ senses
(1855, CLMET3.0)]
(53) (a) [W]e can never have any firme trust in him further then hee offers
himselfe to be trusted; . . . [zero-scope modifier with a ‘scalar’ sense
(1635, EEBO)]
(b) I am no farther critical than every author must necessarily be who
makes a careful study of his own art. [adjective modifier with a ‘scalar’
sense (1829, CLMET3.0)]
23
3 CORPUS RESULTS
In what follows, we will examine the syntactic and semantic properties of further
and farther from 1570 to 1920 by means of a quantitative and qualitative analysis
of the corpus data. To this end, Section 3.1 starts off with a systematic diachronic
investigation of the frequency distribution of further and farther on the basis of
corpus evidence, while Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are dedicated to the discussion and
interpretation of the results for the two analytical parameters. All corpus results
are presented below in frequency tables with data visualization.
3.1 Frequency analysis
The frequency distribution of further and farther follows a somewhat consistent
pattern in EEBO and CLMET3.0, with the corpus data showing further as the
more frequent form in four of the five periods between 1570 and 1920. The one
exception comes from the period 1710–1780, during which farther is marginally
more dominant than further, owing to the former’s sharp rise (61.1%) and the
latter’s precipitous drop (46.2%) in frequency from the preceding period. In Table
2 and its accompanying visual representation, the normalized frequencies of
further and farther in both corpora are charted. All the values listed below are
normalized per one million words and rounded off to the nearest hundredth.
Form
Period
1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Further
249.37
134.25
172.70
228.36
(74.2%)
(48.9%)
(71.7%)
(84.4%)
Farther
86.92
140.07
68.23
42.23
(25.8%)
(51.1%)
(28.3%)
(15.6%)
Total
336.29
274.32
240.93
270.59
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 2
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther
across the five periods
1570–1640
259.58
(82.9%)
53.51
(17.1%)
313.09
(100%)
24
300
250
200
150
Further
Farther
100
50
0
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 1
A line chart with markers showing the normalized frequencies in each period
The above data shows that the frequency behavior of further and farther
reflects two opposing trends in the corpora. First, from 1570–1640 to 1640–1700
and 1710–1780, the frequency of further rapidly declines, whereas that of farther
points to steady increases. Second, the periods 1780–1850 and 1850–1920 see a
pattern shift for further and farther, with the former rising in frequency and the
latter dropping sharply. For the purposes of this research, we aim to account for
these frequency shifts by investigating whether they correlate with any syntactic
and semantic developments of further and farther in the corpus data. Moreover,
we will diachronically examine the kind of relationship that holds between the
two forms, leading up to the functional differentiation that has come to
characterize their behavior in Present-Day English.
3.2 Syntactic analysis
As pointed out in Section 2.3.1 above, both further and farther demonstrate an
ability to occupy a wide range of syntactic environments and modify different
lexical and grammatical items in the corpus data, including nouns, adjectives,
verbs, adverbs, and PPs. Meanwhile, in their capacity as predicative adjectives,
25
linking adverbials, or one part of comparative-correlative constructions, further
and farther appear to lack scope altogether. The syntactic reach of the two forms
is also downright ambiguous in non-PP-introducing constructions such as further
up and farther off, which might serve an adverbial function as a whole.
In order not to clutter the tabular or graphical representations, we have
decided to zoom in separately on the different categories that further on the one
hand and farther on the other modify in the corpus data. Before delving into the
analysis, keep in mind that the earlier distinction between noun premodifiers and
postmodifiers as well as between nouns and their gerundive counterparts is
collapsed here for both forms. As a start, Table 3 and Figure 2 below provide a
quantitative overview of the syntactic scope of further across all five periods in
the corpora.
Scope
Period
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Noun
82.39
97.76
73.17
87.21
109.62
(31.7%)
(39.2%)
(54.5%)
(50.5%)
(48%)
Adjective
1.18
2.38
0.67
1.73
1.14
(0.5%)
(1%)
(0.5%)
(1%)
(0.5%)
Verb
126.55
115.56
49.01
60.44
73.08
(48.8%)
(46.3%)
(36.5%)
(35%)
(32%)
Adverb
2.47
0
0.67
2.59
9.13
(0.9%)
(0%)
(0.5%)
(1.5%)
(4%)
PP
10.69
2.59
2.68
6.04
9.13
(4.1%)
(1%)
(2%)
(3.5%)
(4%)
Zero
36.30
29.56
7.38
12.96
11.42
(14%)
(11.9%)
(5.5%)
(7.5%)
(5%)
Ambiguous
0
1.52
0.67
1.73
14.84
(0%)
(0.6%)
(0.5%)
(1%)
(6.5%)
Total
259.58
249.37
134.25
172.70
228.36
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 3
Normalized and percentage frequencies of the syntactic categories
modified by further across the five periods
26
100%
90%
80%
Ambiguous
70%
Zero
60%
PP
50%
Adverb
40%
Verb
30%
20%
Adjective
10%
Noun
0%
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 2
Percentage frequencies of the different word classes
that further modifies in each period
In the light of the above data, four observations should be addressed. First,
the very low frequency counts for further modifying adjectives, adverbs, and PPs
and having an ambiguous scope do not provide sufficient grounds for statistical
significance testing; consequently, these categories will not be subject to further
investigation. Second, it is interesting to note that the most significant changes in
the syntactic environments of further coincide with its steep decline in frequency
between 1640–1700 and 1710–1780. Third, the corpus data reveals that further as
a noun modifier grows in frequency from the late 16th century to account for over
half of all uses by 1710–1780. While the noun-modifying use of further drops
slightly in frequency over the following two periods, its rise from 1570–1640 to
1640–1700 and 1710–1780 has proved to be statistically significant (p = 0, v =
0.19).1 Fourth, the steady drops in frequency of the verb-modifying (across all
five periods) and zero-scope (between 1570–1640 and 1710–1780) uses of further
1
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1570–1640: 64 nouns, 136 other; 1640–1700: 79 nouns, 121 other; 1710–1780:
109 nouns, 91 other
27
denote strong and moderate statistical significance at the 0.0022 (v = 0.13) and
0.0153 (v = 0.12) levels respectively.
With all this in mind, let us now contrast the syntactic behavior of further
with that of farther. The different types of categories over which farther appears
to have scope in the corpus data are laid out in Table 4 and Figure 3 below.
Scope
Period
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850
Noun
12.79
25.07
50.42
21.84
(23.9%)
(28.8%)
(36%)
(32%)
Adjective
1.28
4.76
1.40
1.70
(2.4%)
(5.5%)
(1%)
(2.5%)
Verb
23.67
39.79
65.14
27.64
(44.2%)
(45.8%)
(46.5%)
(40.5%)
Adverb
1.55
2.51
0.70
3.07
(2.9%)
(2.9%)
(0.5%)
(4.5%)
PP
1.91
2.87
11.21
6.14
(3.6%)
(3.3%)
(8%)
(9%)
Zero
9.32
10.86
5.60
4.09
(17.4%)
(12.5%)
(4%)
(6%)
Ambiguous
2.99
1.06
5.60
3.75
(5.6%)
(1.2%)
(4%)
(5.5%)
Total
53.51
86.92
140.07
68.23
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 4
Normalized and percentage frequencies of the categories
modified by farther across the five periods
2
1850–1920
9.71
(23%)
0.63
(1.5%)
13.10
(31%)
5.07
(12%)
4.43
(10.5%)
3.17
(7.5%)
6.12
(14.5%)
42.23
(100%)
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1570–1640: 97 verbs, 103 other; 1640–1700: 92 verbs, 108 other; 1710–1780: 73
verbs, 127 other; 1780–1850: 70 verbs, 130 other; 1850–1920: 64 verbs, 136
other
3
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1570–1640: 28 zero, 172 other; 1640–1700: 24 zero, 176 other; 1710–1780: 11
zero, 189 other
28
100%
90%
80%
Ambiguous
70%
Zero
60%
PP
50%
Adverb
40%
30%
Verb
20%
Adjective
10%
Noun
0%
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 3
Percentage frequencies of the different word classes
that farther modifies in each period
As can be seen above, further and farther exhibit some differences with
regard to their syntactic development in the corpus data. First, with the exception
of its adjective- and PP-modifying uses, farther generally shows a larger crossperiod frequency variation than does further. Second, the initial gain in frequency
of farther as a noun modifier from 1570–1640 to 1710–1780 succeeded by an
equally offsetting drop over the next two periods indicates moderate statistical
significance (p = 0.03, v = 0.10).4 In this regard, noun-modifying farther follows a
pattern similar to that of its further counterpart, albeit with a lesser degree of
variation. Third, the uptick in frequency of farther with an ambiguous scope from
1710–1780 to 1780–1850 and its subsequent frequency boost in 1850–1920 have
proved to be highly statistically significant (p = 0, v = 0.17).5 Fourth, the rise in
4
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1570–1640: 50 nouns, 150 other; 1640–1700: 58 nouns, 142 other; 1710–1780:
72 nouns, 128 other; 1780–1850: 64 nouns, 136 other; 1850–1920: 46 nouns, 154
other
5
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
29
frequency of farther as an adverb modifier between 1780–1850 and 1850–1920 is
of strong statistical significance at the 0.006 (v = 0.14) level.6 As noted earlier, the
instances of further with an ambiguous or adverbial scope, on the other hand, are
too few to derive any conclusions. Fifth, with a trend comparable to that of its
further counterpart, verb-modifying farther sees significant drops in frequency
from the 18th century (p = 0.006, v = 0.13).7 Lastly, the observations of zeroscope farther sharply decline from 1570–1640 to 1710–1780 (p = 0, v = 0.17),8
propelled by the diminishing clause-initial use of farther in the corpus data (see
Section 3.3 below for the diachronic investigation of the ‘linking adverbial’ sense
of the two forms).
Using the above data, three general tendencies can be identified. First,
further appears to be strongly favored over farther in the context of the NP. This
favoring effect gets progressively stronger with each period, culminating in 1850–
1920 in which 48% of all instances of further pre- or postmodify nouns, compared
to 23% of those of farther. As it turns out, the attested frequency distribution is
far from coincidental (p = 0, v = 0.26),9 suggesting that farther has effectively
ceded part of its noun-modifying use to further from Early to Late Modern
English. This is even more salient when investigating which form is preferred in
noun-modification contexts in 1850–1920, which Table 5 and Figure 4 below
1710–1780: 8 ambiguous, 192 other; 1780–1850: 11 ambiguous, 189 other; 1850–
1920: 29 ambiguous, 171 other
6
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1780–1850: 9 adverbs, 191 other; 1850–1920: 24 adverbs, 176 other
7
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1710–1780: 93 verbs, 107 other; 1780–1850: 81 verbs, 119 other; 1850–1920: 62
verbs, 138 other
8
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1570–1640: 35 zero, 165 other; 1640–1700: 26 zero, 174 other; 1710–1780: 9
zero, 191 other
9
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test (1850–1920):
further: 96 nouns, 104 other; farther: 46 nouns, 154 other
30
clearly show to be further in nearly 92% of the cases. While noun-modifying
farther rises in conjunction with the form’s overall frequency between 1570–1640
and 1710–1780, it loses ground to its further counterpart over the next two
periods. This may in turn tie in with Breban’s (2010: Chapters 3–4) claim that
further has developed a postdeterminer use in NPs as a result of subjectification
(refer to Section 3.3 below for the semantic side of the argument).
Form
Period
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Further
82.39
97.76
73.17
87.21
109.62
(86.6%)
(79.6%)
(59.2%)
(80%)
(91.9%)
Farther
12.79
25.07
50.42
21.84
9.71
(13.4%)
(20.4%)
(40.8%)
(20%)
(8.1%)
Total
95.18
122.83
123.59
109.05
119.33
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 5
Normalized and percentage frequencies of the noun-modifying uses of
further and farther across all five periods
120
91.9%
100
80
79.6%
80%
86.6%
59.2%
60
Further
40.8%
Farther
40
20.4%
20
13.4%
20%
8.1%
0
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 4
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther as
noun modifiers in each period
Second, by conflating the classes of verb, adverb, and PP modifiers, 55%
of all observations of farther – as opposed to 39% of those of further – are found
31
to associate with the resulting sequence [further/farther + verb/adverb/PP] in
1710–1780 (p = 0.001, v = 0.16),10 a pattern that persists over the following two
periods with only slight variation. Using normalized frequencies to adopt the
perspective of verbal, adverbial, and prepositional contexts, however, reveals an
opposite trend. Table 6 and Figure 5 below demonstrate that – concurrent with
their frequency distribution – it is actually further that is strongly favored in the
three contexts combined in all periods except 1710–1780.
Form
Period
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Further
139.71
118.15
52.36
69.07
91.34
(83.7%)
(72.3%)
(40.5%)
(65.2%)
(80.2%)
Farther
27.13
45.17
77.05
36.85
22.60
(16.3%)
(27.7%)
(59.5%)
(34.8%)
(19.8%)
Total
166.84
163.32
129.41
105.92
113.94
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 6
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther in
verbal, adverbial, and prepositional contexts across all five periods
150
83.7%
125
72.3%
100
80.2%
59.5%
75
50
25
27.7%
16.3%
40.5%
Further
65.2%
Farther
34.8%
19.8%
0
1570–16401640–17001710–17801780–18501850–1920
Figure 5
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther as
verb, adverb, and PP modifiers in each period
10
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test (1710–1780):
further: 78 verbs/adverbs/PPs, 122 other; farther: 110 verbs/adverbs/PPs, 90 other
32
Third, 14.5% of all instances of farther – compared to 6.5% of those of
further – have an ambiguous scope in 1850–1920 by occurring with single-word
prepositions (p = 0.009, v = 0.13).11 In contrast, the normalized frequencies in
Table 7 and Figure 6 below offer a nuanced account by demonstrating how the
sequence [further/farther + preposition] correlates more strongly with further in
1640–1700 and 1850–1920 and with farther in 1570–1640, 1710–1780, and
1780–1850.
Form
Period
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Further
0
1.52
0.67
1.73
14.84
(0%)
(58.9%)
(10.7%)
(31.6%)
(70.8%)
Farther
2.99
1.06
5.60
3.75
6.12
(100%)
(41.1%)
(89.3%)
(68.4%)
(29.2%)
Total
2.99
2.58
6.27
5.48
20.96
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 7
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther
with an ambiguous scope across all five periods
20
70.8%
15
10
Further
89.3%
5
100%
58.9%
0
0%
41.1%
10.7%
68.4%
29.2%
Farther
31.6%
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 6
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther
denoting ambiguous scopal relations in each period
11
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test (1850–1920):
further: 13 ambiguous, 187 other; farther: 29 ambiguous, 171 other
33
3.3 Semantic analysis
In this section, it is our aim to explore the rate at which the different meanings of
further and farther have evolved from Early to Late Modern English. To this end,
we have identified all the readings that further and farther can take based on the
types of syntactic categories they modify. The corpus data reveals that further and
farther in the context of the NP are typically used as postdeterminers in an
‘additive’ or ‘continuative’ sense. As regards their verb-modifying uses, further
and farther usually allow either an ‘additive’ or ‘continuative’ interpretation or
quite rarely a combination of both. An ‘additive’ sense is also evoked with the
linking adverbial use of the two forms.
Moreover, three ‘space adjunct’ senses have been distinguished with the
noun- and verb-modifying uses of further and farther. These include expressions
of physical distance, figurative distance at the VP level, and figurative distance at
the word level. Possible sense combinations of ‘space adjunct’ and ‘continuative’
in the VP and to a lesser extent ‘space adjunct’ and ‘additive’ in the NP are also
attested. Lastly, a minor ‘scalar’ reading (similar to that of intensifier more) is
noted with the adjective-modifying and zero-scope uses of both forms.
Along the lines of the syntactic analysis in the previous section, further
and farther will be discussed in turn with respect to the possible interpretations
they admit. For our purposes here, we have collapsed the previous distinction
between the two types of figurative distance and only conflated all ‘space adjunct’
readings when they combine with an ‘additive’ or ‘continuative’ interpretation.
We have also merged all ‘additive’ senses on the one hand (with the exception of
the linking adverbial use) and ‘continuative’ senses on the other – regardless of
their syntactic environments. Table 8 and Figure 7 below illustrate the resulting
kinds of meaning associated with further across all five periods in the corpora.
34
Sense
Period
1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Additive
111.82
65.12
58.73
97.04
(44.8%)
(48.5%)
(34%)
(42.5%)
Continuative
75.34
39.61
57.85
50.23
(30.2%)
(29.5%)
(33.5%)
(22%)
Additive +
2.44
0.67
0
1.14
continuative
(1%)
(0.5%)
(0%)
(0.5%)
Space adjunct
5.29
7.38
11.22
37.66
(physical)
(2.1%)
(5.5%)
(6.5%)
(16.5%)
Space adjunct
20.41
7.38
14.68
17.2
(figurative)
(8.2%)
(5.5%)
(8.5%)
(7.5%)
Space adjunct
5.76
8.05
17.27
15.97
+ continuative
(2.3%)
(6%)
(10%)
(7%)
Space adjunct
0
1.34
1.73
2.28
+ additive
(0%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
Linking
24.32
4.03
11.22
6.84
adverbial
(9.8%)
(3%)
(6.5%)
(3%)
Scalar
3.99
0.67
0
0
(1.6%)
(0.5%)
(0%)
(0%)
Total
249.37
134.25
172.70
228.36
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 8
Normalized and percentage frequencies of the different senses of
further across the five periods
1570–1640
88.67
(34.2%)
71.42
(27.5%)
6.16
(2.4%)
19.38
(7.5%)
24.57
(9.5%)
11.83
(4.5%)
4.15
(1.6%)
31.28
(12%)
2.12
(0.8%)
259.58
(100%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Scalar
Linking adverbial
Space adjunct + additive
Space adjunct + continuative
Space adjunct (figurative)
Space adjunct (physical)
Additive + continuative
Continuative
Additive
Figure 7
Percentage frequencies of the different meanings of further in each period
35
To interpret the above data, five key points need to be made. First, the
‘scalar’, ‘additive + continuative’, ‘space adjunct + additive’, and ‘space adjunct
+ continuative’ senses will not be dealt with due to their insignificant frequency
variation. Second, the ‘additive’ reading of further sees frequency growth from
1570–1640 to 1710–1780 before declining and rising again over the next two
periods, with the attested fluctuation statistically significant (p = 0.002, v =
0.12).12 Third, the use of further in a ‘continuative’ sense remains mostly stable in
all periods, apart from a somewhat steep drop between 1780–1850 and 1850–
1920 that is of moderate statistical significance at the 0.01 (v = 0.13) level.13
Fourth, further in its capacity as a physical ‘space adjunct’ records a significant
boost in frequency from 1710–1780 to 1850–1920 (p = 0.003, v = 0.14).14 Perhaps
surprising here is also the tendency for further in the early 20th century to be used
to express more physical than figurative distance. Fifth, with its decline in
frequency from 1570–1640 to 1710–1780 being statistically significant (p =
0.003, v = 0.14),15 linking adverbial further constitutes merely 3% of all the
form’s uses by 1850–1920.
For the comparison of further and farther on semantic grounds, let us now
turn to the different interpretations that farther lends itself to in the corpus data, as
demonstrated in Table 9 and Figure 8 below.
12
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1570–1640: 68 additive, 132 other; 1640–1700: 89 additive, 111 other; 1710–
1780: 97 additive, 103 other; 1780–1850: 68 additive, 132 other; 1850–1920: 91
additive, 109 other
13
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1780–1850: 67 continuative, 133 other; 1850–1920: 44 continuative, 156 other
14
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1710–1780: 9 physical space adjuncts, 191 other; 1780–1850: 12 physical space
adjuncts, 188 other; 1850–1920: 26 physical space adjuncts, 174 other
15
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1570–1640: 24 linking adverbials, 176 other; 1640–1700: 20 linking adverbials,
180 other; 1710–1780: 6 linking adverbials, 194 other
36
Sense
Period
1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Additive
30.75
40.63
10.92
0.84
(35.4%)
(29%)
(16%)
(2%)
Continuative
19.49
37.13
14.68
1.48
(22.4%)
(26.5%)
(21.5%)
(3.5%)
Additive +
0.89
0.70
0
0
continuative
(1%)
(0.5%)
(0%)
(0%)
Space adjunct
8.93
28.71
19.79
25.76
(physical)
(10.3%)
(20.5%)
(29%)
(61%)
Space adjunct
14.16
17.50
11.93
11.20
(figurative)
(16.3%)
(12.5%)
(17.5%)
(26.5%)
Space adjunct
1.96
11.20
8.87
2.11
+ continuative
(2.2%)
(8%)
(13%)
(5%)
Space adjunct
0
0.70
0.68
0.84
+ additive
(0%)
(0.5%)
(1%)
(2%)
Linking
7.19
2.80
1.02
0
adverbial
(8.3%)
(2%)
(1.5%)
(0%)
Scalar
3.55
0.70
0.34
0
(4.1%)
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
(0%)
Total
86.92
140.07
68.23
42.23
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 9
Normalized and percentage frequencies of the different senses of
farther across the five periods
1570–1640
10.82
(20.2%)
11.79
(22%)
0.29
(0.5%)
12.25
(22.9%)
8.05
(15.1%)
3.91
(7.3%)
1.10
(2.1%)
3.54
(6.6%)
1.76
(3.3%)
53.51
(100%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Scalar
Linking adverbial
Space adjunct + additive
Space adjunct + continuative
Space adjunct (figurative)
Space adjunct (physical)
Additive + continuative
Continuative
Additive
Figure 8
Percentage frequencies of the different meanings of farther in each period
37
With the exception of its ‘scalar’, ‘additive + continuative’, and ‘space
adjunct + additive’ senses, farther in its various uses goes through a number of
significant changes in the corpus data. First, both the ‘additive’ and ‘continuative’
readings decline from the early 18th century, most drastically between 1780–1850
and 1850–1920, which has proved to be highly statistically significant for the two
senses (p = 0, v = 0.24 and 0.27 respectively).16 Second, over the same period, the
physical ‘space adjunct’ use of farther sees a significant spike in frequency (p = 0,
v = 0.32),17 which in effect offsets the total percentage frequency loss suffered by
the ‘additive’ and ‘continuative’ senses above. Third, much against (or perhaps
despite) the prescriptive literature cited earlier (e.g. Garner 2003: 340; Fowler
2009 [1926]: 171), figurative ‘space adjunct’ marks the second most frequent use
of farther in the early 20th century, consistently rising from 1710–1780 to 1850–
1920 (p = 0.001, v = 0.15).18 Fourth, following the same pattern observed for the
‘continuative’ rather than the ‘space adjunct’ sense, ‘space adjunct + continuative’
drops in frequency between 1780–1850 and 1850–1920, which has turned out to
be statistically significant at the 0.003 (v = 0.15) level.19 Lastly, the linking
adverbial use of farther diminishes from 1640–1700, to the extent where no such
instances are attested by 1850–1920.
16
Absolute frequencies for the two chi-square tests:
(i) 1780–1850: 32 additive, 168 other; 1850–1920: 4 additive, 196 other
(ii) 1780–1850: 43 continuative, 157 other; 1850–1920: 7 continuative, 193 other
17
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1780–1850: 58 physical space adjuncts, 142 other; 1850–1920: 121 physical
space adjuncts, 79 other
18
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1710–1780: 25 figurative space adjuncts, 175 other; 1780–1850: 35 figurative
space adjuncts, 165 other; 1850–1920: 53 figurative space adjuncts, 147 other
19
Absolute frequencies for the chi-square test:
1780–1850: 26 ‘space adjunct + continuative’, 174 other; 1850–1920: 9 ‘space
adjunct + continuative’, 191 other
38
By contrasting the semantic development of further with that of farther,
three broad tendencies can be discerned. First, further is much more likely than
farther to encode an ‘additive’ or ‘continuative’ sense in all periods. In fact, while
the ‘additive’ and ‘continuative’ readings constitute the two most common uses of
further, they are rarely evoked with farther in 1850–1920. Tables 10 and 11 with
their accompanying graphical representations below illustrate how the normalized
frequencies of the ‘additive’ and ‘continuative’ meanings of farther come close to
matching those of their further counterparts in 1710–1780. However, by the early
20th century, further has come to predominate in both senses, accounting for
nearly all such observations in 1850–1920.
Form
Period
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Further
88.67
111.82
65.12
58.73
97.04
(89.1%)
(78.4%)
(61.6%)
(84.3%)
(99.1%)
Farther
10.82
30.75
40.63
10.92
0.84
(10.9%)
(21.6%)
(38.4%)
(15.7%)
(0.9%)
Total
99.49
142.57
105.75
69.65
97.88
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 10
Normalized and percentage frequencies of the ‘additive’ sense of
further and farther across all five periods
120
78.4%
100
80
99.1%
89.1%
61.6%
60
84.3%
38.4%
40
Farther
21.6%
20
10.9%
0
Further
15.7%
0.9%
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 9
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther with
an ‘additive’ sense in each period
39
Form
Period
1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Further
75.34
39.61
57.85
50.23
(79.4%)
(51.6%)
(79.8%)
(97.1%)
Farther
19.49
37.13
14.68
1.48
(20.6%)
(48.4%)
(20.2%)
(2.9%)
Total
94.83
76.74
72.53
51.71
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 11
Normalized and percentage frequencies of the ‘continuative’ sense of
further and farther across all five periods
1570–1640
71.42
(85.8%)
11.79
(14.2%)
83.21
(100%)
100
80
60
79.4%
85.8%
79.8%
51.6%
40
97.1%
Farther
48.4%
20
20.6%
Further
20.2%
14.2%
0
2.9%
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 10
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther with
a ‘continuative’ sense in each period
Second, the corpus data shows that 87.5% of all instances of farther in
1850–1920 denote both physical and figurative ‘space adjuncts’, as opposed to
24% only of those of further. On the one hand, this tendency effectively refutes
any prescriptive claims restricting farther to expressions of physical distance
only. On the other, it is fairly consistent with the wider (and more balanced) view
in the OED, which states that farther is preferred as the comparative form of far
(without invoking a physical-figurative contrast), while further is largely used in
contexts where a spatial construal is hardly evoked (e.g. in an ‘additive’ or
40
‘continuative’ sense). Conversely, from an onomasiological perspective, Tables
12 and 13 with their visual representations below show further as the preferred
form (in terms of normalized frequencies) with physical distance in 1570–1640
and 1850–1920 as well as figurative distance in all periods except 1710–1780.
The discrepancy between the above findings can be attributed to further being on
the whole more frequent and thus more likely on average to be used with both
types of spatial expressions.
Form
Period
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Further
19.38
5.29
7.38
11.22
37.66
(61.3%)
(37.2%)
(20.4%)
(36.2%)
(59.4%)
Farther
12.25
8.93
28.71
19.79
25.76
(38.7%)
(62.8%)
(79.6%)
(63.8%)
(40.6%)
Total
31.63
14.22
36.09
31.01
63.42
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 12
Normalized and percentage frequencies of the physical ‘space adjunct’ use of
further and farther across all five periods
40
59.4%
35
30
79.6%
25
20
5
Further
61.3%
15
10
40.6%
63.8%
Farther
62.8%
36.2%
38.7%
37.2%
20.4%
0
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 11
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther as
physical ‘space adjuncts’ in each period
41
Form
Period
1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Further
20.41
7.38
14.68
17.20
(59%)
(29.7%)
(55.2%)
(60.6%)
Farther
14.16
17.50
11.93
11.20
(41%)
(70.3%)
(44.8%)
(39.4%)
Total
34.57
24.88
26.61
28.40
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 13
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther with
expressions of figurative distance across all five periods
1570–1640
24.57
(75.3%)
8.05
(24.7%)
32.62
(100%)
30
25
75.3%
59%
20
70.3%
55.2%
60.6%
15
Further
41%
10
44.8%
24.7%
39.4%
Farther
29.7%
5
0
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 12
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther as
figurative ‘space adjuncts’ in each period
Third and finally, while a linking adverbial use is exclusively associated
with further in the literature, the corpus data reveals that farther also has the same
function in all periods except 1850–1920. However, it can only be regarded as a
diminishing minor use, accounting for as little as 3% and 0% of all instances of
further and farther respectively by 1850–1920. Using normalized frequencies,
Table 14 and Figure 13 below demonstrate that there has always been a strong
preference for further with the linking adverbial use across all periods in the
corpora.
42
Form
Period
1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Further
24.32
4.03
11.22
6.84
(77.2%)
(59%)
(91.7%)
(100%)
Farther
7.19
2.80
1.02
0
(22.8%)
(41%)
(8.3%)
(0%)
Total
31.51
6.83
12.24
6.84
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Table 14
Normalized and percentage frequencies of further and farther as
linking adverbials across all five periods
1570–1640
31.28
(89.8%)
3.54
(10.2%)
34.82
(100%)
40
35
30
89.8%
25
77.2%
20
Further
15
10
5
0
Farther
91.7%
22.8%
10.2%
59%
41%
100%
8.3%
0%
1570–1640 1640–1700 1710–1780 1780–1850 1850–1920
Figure 13
Normalized and percentage frequencies of the linking adverbial use of
further and farther in each period
43
4 CONCLUSION
The use of further and farther has been the subject of a number of unsystematic
observations in the literature. On the one hand, a division of labor has been long
maintained in the prescriptive tradition, where further is reserved for figurative
distance and farther for physical distance (e.g. Cobbett 1883 [1818]: 49; Garner
2003: 340). On the other, a distinction is far less obvious in descriptive grammars,
where further is used for all purposes and farther largely restricted to expressions
of physical distance (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 458–9; Fowler 2009 [1926]: 171). The
additional uses of further in the literature (most notably those of postdeterminer
and linking adverbial) seem to suggest that some sort of present-day functional
differentiation operates between the two forms. This view, however, is in stark
contrast with the evidence from the OED, which demonstrates that further and
farther in theory have always shared the same senses from as early as the 14th
century. In this study, we have aimed to examine how this differentiation could
have come about by means of a comparative corpus analysis of further and
farther from 1570 to 1920 on the basis of their frequency distribution as well as
their syntactic and semantic properties.
The corpus data has shown further as the dominant form in all but one
period, farther being more frequent in 1710–1780 only. Besides, the frequency
behavior of both forms has exhibited two reverse trends, as further drops and
farther rises in frequency from 1570–1640 to 1640–1700 and 1710–1780 before
they switch patterns over the next two periods.
On the syntactic level, we have identified three general tendencies. First,
noun-modifying further is strongly favored over its farther counterpart in all
periods, most prominently 1850–1920. This may corroborate Breban’s (2010:
Chapters 3–4) assertion regarding how present-day further has developed a
postdeterminer use in the NP due to subjectification. Second, by taking into
44
account the combined normalized frequencies of verb, adverb, and PP modifiers,
further appears to correlate more closely than farther with the resulting sequence
[further/farther + verb/adverb/PP] in all periods except 1710–1780. Third, with
regard to scopal ambiguity, the sequence [further/farther + preposition] shows a
strong preference for further in 1640–1700 and 1850–1920 and for farther in
1570–1640, 1710–1780, and 1780–1850.
Investigating the different meanings of further and farther in the corpus
data, we have observed three major trends. First, further is much more likely than
farther to express an ‘additive’ or ‘continuative’ sense in all periods, culminating
in 1850–1920 in which it accounts for an overwhelming majority of both senses.
Second, against the prescriptive claims limiting farther to physical distance only,
farther in itself is extensively used as a ‘space adjunct’ denoting not only physical
but also figurative distance across all periods. This is fairly consonant with the
position articulated in the OED, in which farther is used with expressions of
distance in general and further where the notion of distance is altogether absent
(e.g. in an ‘additive’ or ‘continuative’ sense). In terms of normalized frequencies,
however, further appears to be preferred over farther with physical distance in
1570–1640 and 1850–1920 and with figurative distance in all periods except
1710–1780. These seemingly conflicting results can be ascribed to further being
on the whole more frequent and thus more likely to be used with all spatial
expressions. Third, the linking adverbial use has proved to be a minor one for
both further and farther in all periods, except 1850–1920 in which it is
exclusively associated with further to a very small extent.
Given the above findings, it is important to acknowledge the important
role that frequency plays in form choice. Indeed, the corpus data has shown how
farther strongly challenges further in every syntactic and semantic category in
1710–1780, the only period in which farther is more frequent. Similarly, in 1850–
1920, while the majority of all observations of farther appear to denote the two
45
spatial senses, further vis-à-vis farther remains the preferred form with such
expressions due to its higher overall frequency. This confirms how arbitrary the
so-called differentiation between further and farther is, which in effect does not
translate into actual language usage. It also goes to show how current functional
distinctions simply fail to capture how language users typically opt for the more
frequent (and thus the more cognitively accessible) of the two forms.
In closing, not only does the current inquiry contribute to a growing body
of literature regarding the structural and semantic factors that impact the choice of
competing forms, it also sheds light on how related forms may undergo functional
differentiation in the course of their development. The analytical results presented
here can therefore serve as an inspiration for future diachronic studies aiming to
compare the syntactic and semantic properties of any two forms competing over a
set of similar functions. More research in this area could expand on the present
scope by including a logistic regression analysis to test for possible interaction
effects between language-internal (e.g. syntax, meaning) and language-external
(e.g. time, dialect) predictors on the response outcome. Variationist investigations
of this kind would not only explore the relative and aggregate effects of different
factors on form choice, but also lead to a better overall understanding of how the
forms in question have evolved through time.
46
REFERENCES
Berthele, Raphael. 2004. The typology of motion and posture verbs: A variationist
account. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect
grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 93–126. Berlin/NY: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward
Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English.
London/NY: Longman.
Breban, Tine. 2010. English adjectives of comparison: Lexical and
grammaticalized uses. Berlin/NY: Walter de Gruyter.
Breban, Tine & Kristin Davidse. 2003. Adjectives of comparison: The
grammaticalization of their attribute uses into postdeterminer and
classifier uses. Folia Linguistica 37(3/4), 269–317.
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cappelle, Bert. 2011. The the . . . the . . . construction: Meaning and readings.
Journal of Pragmatics 43(1), 99–117.
Cobbett, William. 1883 [1818]. A grammar of the English language, in a series of
letters. NY: James W. Pratt.
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach.
Harlow, Essex: Longman.
47
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The
English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 543–71.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2005. A corpus of Late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal
29, 69–82.
Depraetere, Ilse & Chad Langford. 2012. Advanced English grammar: A
linguistic approach. London: Continuum.
Downing, Angela & Philip Locke. 2006. English grammar: A university course,
2nd edn. London/NY: Routledge.
Fowler, Henry Watson. 2009 [1926]. A dictionary of modern English usage: The
classic first edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garner, Bryan A. 2003. Garner’s modern American usage, 2nd edn. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of
the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1:
Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2:
Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey & Jan Svartvik. 2003. A communicative grammar of English, 3rd
edn. London: Longman.
48
OED Online. 2014. “farther, adv. and adj.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/68319?rskey=dWOk7Y (6 July 2014).
OED Online. 2014. “further, adj.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/75715?rskey=VxtxqP (6 July 2014).
OED Online. 2014. “further, adv.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/75717?rskey=VxtxqP (6 July 2014).
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A
comprehensive grammar of the English language. London/NY: Longman.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical
forms. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic
description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57–149.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and
process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, Michael (ed.). 1998. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and
functional approaches to language structure, vol. 1. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tomasello, Michael (ed.). 2002. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and
functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
49
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and times. In Zeno Vendler (ed.), Linguistics in
philosophy, 97–121. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.